h.Denies my request that plaintiff appear in court to
show cause for contempt of court when: absconding with child to Guatemala,
Hiding his location, Interfering with court ordered visitation, and Interfering
with court ordered telephone contact.

i.Denies my request that plaintiff appear in court to
show cause for perjury when lying about intended destination for taking my son.

j.Denies my request that plaintiff be restricted from
using denial of telephone contact as a method of punishing my son as this would
require interference with court ordered telephone contact.

k.Denies my request to enforce divorce order that
requires my son’s school to provide his records to me.

J.Brief Included With Motion For Reconsideration

K.Plaintiffs Cross Motion Requesting That I Not Be
Allowed To File Motions Without Preapproval From
Judge Cassidy

L.My Response To Cross Motion Requesting I Not Be Allowed
To File Motions Without Preapproval From Judge
Cassidy

M.Cover Letter Sent With Letter Discussing My Son’s
Threat To Defend Himself With Gun

Motion For
Free Transcripts Or Use Trust Fund To Purchase, And

Motion On
Child Welfare Issues

Your Honor,

I am John
Shearing the defendant. I am appealing a divorce from a woman to whom I was
never legally married. I have been living in a tent in the woods since June and
for two years prior to that, I have been living in my van until it was
repossessed. I am existing this way because all my
time and money is going towards my defense in these proceedings and in a civil
suit that originated from the same complaint. Thanks to the Honorable Howard H Kestin, I was granted indigency
status onJan, 11, 2006, and am now
making the most of the opportunity he gave me to seek a just outcome in these
proceedings. Please accept the following as my motion brief.

Please
note: Many exhibits are located in an
appellate motion filed on 2/6/06. The motion is entitled Motion To Consider Parenting Plan

1.Children’s Money Fueling This Lawsuit

Central to this case are two separate trust funds.
One trust fund contains $10,000 andwas setup by Judge Whitken
to pay taxes that resulted from liquidating all my assets which were used to
pay my support obligation. In this brief I will be requesting that this fund be
used to pay my taxes and purchase transcripts of the divorce being appealed.

The other one was set up for my children and
contains stock in my family’s company. I can not and will not removed assets
from that fund unless ordered to by the courts. The facts that I am
representing myself, that I have no expert witnesses, and that I live outside,
demonstrate that this fund is only for my children’s future. In point heading 2
you will see that my children’s trust fund is the pot of gold at the end of the
rainbow for the plaintiff and her lawyer Mr. Duff.

2. Forced
To Divorce A Woman To Whom I Was Never Married.

I filed an appeal of my divorce because
I was never legally married to the plaintiff. She was married to another man
when she took her vows with me. Judge Brock refused to look at my evidence and
responded that I must not love my son. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I raised these issues to protect my sons trust fund which Judge Brock intended
to invalidate and confiscate in order to pay the plaintiff’s lawyer (transcript
will prove this). But children shouldn’t be required to pay for their parents divorce, especially if the parents were never
married to begin with. Finally, as the judge was unable to break the trust, she
used equitable distribution laws to award a portion of my children’s trust to
the plaintiff. But since their was no marriage, there
can be no equitable distribution and so the plaintiff and her lawyer have no
right to any of my children’s assets. That is why the appeal is so important.
Later in the Trial, I asked to introduced this
evidence in reference to the character of the plaintiff. The evidence was a
simple certification of facts written in Guatemalabutwith a certified English translation.
Please see [Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06 Exhibit A]. The judge told me that she would not be able to understand this
simple certification without an expert witness in Guatemalan law. Finally,
after making it clear that I would not turn over my children’s trust fund
without exhausting every possible appeal and using every form of legal
resistance, the judge threatened to stop me from parenting my son because I
gave him a toy Star Wars blaster. Specifically, she said thatshe thought perhaps I had damaged my
son’s psyche by giving him the toy and that she would need to personally
perform an expert psychological evaluation on my son before he could visit with
me. Give me a break; the judge holds a doctor’s degree in law but needs an
expert to understand a simple certification, yet somehow she has the
qualifications to do and expert evaluation on my son’s psyche? The threat was
loud and clear. "IF YOU WANT TO SEE YOUR SON, THEN TURN OVER THE TRUST
FUND." I never did sign over my children's trust fund, and so the judge
made good on her threat by assigning a visitation supervisor who was known to
be unavailable. She knew because I told her. The transcript I ask for will show
all this. Finally, at one point in the trial, the plaintiff’s lawyer was
standing over me as I was sitting. In order to maintain eye contact I was
leaning back in my chair (I should have been in the witness box at eye level
with my opponent). At this point thejudge told me to “Sit up like a big
boy”. Then one of her guards struck me from behind (This is all on the
transcript and the recording. Also, [Exhibit
B of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] is a complaint made with the Sheriffs Department on the
incident). Now, fearing for my safety, I left the courtroom and they continued
the trial without me. The transcripts will prove all of what I just told you.
Lt Frank of the Sheriff’s Department took my statement on the officers assault.

3. Case Background and Proof Of A Legitimate Appeal

Please see [Point Heading 3 of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06]
for full brief and supporting evidence of a legitimate appeal.

4. November 1 2005,A $10,000
Trust Fund Is Discovered

On November 2 2005 while preparing my notice of appeal for
the divorce and a motion for free transcripts, I received,
a letter from my former lawyer, Brian Schwartz of Ceconi
and CheifetzExhibit A. The letter
states that he is holding by authority of a court order signed by Judge Whitken, $10,000 which according to the court order Exhibit
B was to be held to pay my taxes resulting from the liquidation of
assets that were used to pay my support obligation. It then occurred to me that
after I pay my back taxes, I would have enough money to purchase transcripts
which is why I am filing this motion.

5.Notice Of Appeal Filed With The Appellate
Division Along With Motion To Proceed As Indigent On November 3 2005.

On November 3rd,for the reasons stated above, I filed a notice of appeal
with the Appellate Division (received November 7th) along with a
motion to proceed as indigent. Indigency was granted
on Jan ,11 ,2006Exhibit
C.

6.Simultaneously, I Filed Motion In Family Court
Requesting: Indigency, Stay Pending Appeal, And
Transcripts Of Divorce Be Purchased With The $10,000 Tax Trust Fund.

On this same day of November 3rd along
with a motion for stay pending appeal I filed a motion for free transcripts
with the family court or in the alternative requesting to use the recently
discovered $10,000 trust fund to pay for them. Unfortunately as I am penniless, I
also filed a motion to proceed as indigent because I did not have the money to
pay the $30 motion fee. Exhibit D is the motion I filed with the family
court.

7. My Motions Buried In
Family Court UnderIndigency
Issue

On Dec
16 2005, I received a decision from Judge Cassidy that she would not
allow me to proceed as indigent. This is enclosed as Exhibit E. Exhibit
F is the envelop it came in. Please notice the post mark dated Dec 15 2005. Because indigency was denied, she never even considered the issues
of free transcripts or in the alternative to use the $10,000 trust fund of mine
for this purpose. Stay pending appeal was not considered either. Ironically,
the appellate division looked at the same information and granted me indigency on Jan 11 2006.

8.Plaintiff Was Granted Motion To
Have My $10,000 Tax Trust Fund While My Motion To Use It For Transcripts Sat
Buried

The plaintiff filed a motion on November
21 Exhibit G to request the $10,000 trust fund be used to pay the
judgment that I am appealing. Thisis the same money that I had asked in
myprior motion, to be used to pay for
transcripts in my appeal. Had the judge made a timely decision on the matter of
indigency, I would have had a chance to come up with
$30 required for consideration of my motion to use the trust fund for
transcripts. Instead, I received notice on the very day that my opponents
motion was granted, that my motion would not even be considered, yet my motion
was filed two weeks prior. For this reason, I feel I was deprived of due
process and the opportunity to use the last of my assets to defend myself. It
is bad enough that the false divorce proceedings have made me penniless (there
was no legal marriage to dissolve), but now the delayed decision on indigency perverted a process that is supposed to give
penniless people a chance to be heard. This decision seems even more errant when you consider that the Honorable Howard Kestin of the Appellate Court looked at the same
information and granted my motion for indigency.

Another reason that Judge Cassidy’s
decision seems errant is that the issue was already out of her jurisdiction.
Since Judge Cassidy awarded the money to pay a judgment that was already under
appeal, and since she was required to overturn Judge Whitken’s
court order in order to do this, Exhibit B, the whole matter was
already out of her jurisdiction. I would not have know this hadJudge Cassidy not demonstrated as
follows:

On or about November 16 2005, I filed a motion for modified visitation
with my son. But in the Judge’s Decision of Dec 16 2005, [Exhibit
L of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06], she proclaims that the issue of visitation is
out of her jurisdiction because the issue is already set to be heard on appeal.
I maintain that Judge Cassidy’s decision, also made on Dec 16, to grant my
$10,000 tax fund to the plaintiff [Exhibit
M of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] was also out of Judge Cassidy’s jurisdiction for
the same reasons. How can she be administrating the law and yet have it both
ways?

Finally, this decision to obstructs my ability to appeal my divorce because if I can
not get the transcripts, then Judge Cassidy knows that I can not appeal. This
appeal is far too important to be squashed because if I can get you those
transcript’s I can prove that Judge Brock (the judge who conducted the divorce)
engaged in judicial hostage taking where I was denied parenting time in direct
response to my refusal to cooperate in the false divorce proceedings. This is a
children’s rights issue and it must be heard.

9. Dec 16 2005, Judge Cassidy Limits My Communication With
The Court.

Also in Judge Cassidy’s decision [Exhibit L of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06], is the order that all communication with the
court must happen through regular mail. I was further told by Elina, Judge Cassidy’s clerk, that
I would not be allowed to come to court to pick up a copy of the decision. Then
I was told that I would not be allowed to call the court by phone in the future
or make any faxes. I can find nothing in the court rules supporting this and
can think of no valid reason to make these demands. Furthermore, Exhibit
H shows that my opponent Mr. Duffis not required to adhere to the same
restrictions. Please notice the method by which these items were sent. While I
may write arguments that the judge finds disagreeable, I have never been
disrespectful, or threatening in anyway. Nor, I have never taken more of
anyone’s time than the official business at hand required. Finally, In my 5 years dealing with the courts, my motions and
letters have been lost by the court many times. By making personal deliveries
to the court, I have been able to get receipts for all the documents submitted.
This is essential when documents are lost. Of course I will use regular mail
whenever possible, but when the situation requires it (emergent motions for
example), I request that I be given the same access to the courts as any other
member of the public. So for the reasons stated, I request that this provision
of the order be reversed.

10.Back to Nov 21 2005, Plaintiff
Asks For Passport AndPermission To Take Child To Bahamas

On Nov 21, the plaintiff filed a motion with Judge
Cassidy to regain her passport and my son's so that she could take my son out
of the country to the BahamasExhibit G.

11.I Advised
Judge Cassidy That Plaintiff Is Flight Risk

I agreed to this on the condition that she provide proof of her destination prior to a court decision.
Please see [Exhibit Q of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06](I believed she was a flight risk and
so did the courts otherwise they would not have confiscated the passports in
the first place). The judge declined to hear oral argument on the matter.

12. Dec 16, 2005, Judge
Cassidy Returns Passports to Plaintiff and Allows Her To
Take Our Son To The Bahamas
(specifically)

On Dec 16 2005 Judge Cassidy granted the plaintiff’s motion and
provided a court order [Exhibit L of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06]that allowed her to reclaim her passport (Previously Confiscated) and
to take our child to the Bahamas.The judge
also mandated that I was to be told the exact location ofour child. The judge did not however
check for verification of the plaintiff’s destination as I had implored.

13.
Plaintiff
Defied Judge’s Court Order:

a.Child Taken To GuatemalaAgainst Order And Without Proper Medication.

b.Childs Location Hidden Also Against Order

In the end, it turned out that my
son was taken to Guatemala
(not the Bahamas
as the court order [Exhibit L of Appellate
Motion filed 2/6/06] specified) and which was just as [Exhibit
Q of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] predicted. Further, I was not told his location
until his return. I was told by my son who was afraid to tell me but thought it
was important. Examination of the passports proved my 8 year old son correct
and that I had reason to believe that the plaintiff would lie to Judge Cassidy.
To make things worse, the plaintiff deprived my child of inoculation and
medication recommended by The Center for Disease Control when traveling to Guatemala.

14. Our Child Became Sick

Since my sons return from Guatemala he had been
suffering from flu like symptoms and had been sleeping in school. While I
prayed to God he was only suffering the flu, was quite possible that he had
picked up a tropical disease from Guatemala as most of these
diseases start out with flu like symptoms.

15. I filed Motion To Take Child
To Doctor And To Show Cause.

Upon finishing my research, I determined
that my son may be at risk so I filed an emergent motion with Judge Cassidy to
have my child examined by his doctor to be sure he was well [Exhibit
S of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06]. This motion also requested that the plaintiff show cause
for lying to the Judge and for defying the judges order.

16. Plaintiff Refused To Take
Child To Doctor

In response to my motion, the plaintiff
filed a reply[Exhibit
T of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] stating that she had no intention of taking my son to the
doctor. This was after becoming aware of Center For
Disease Control recommendations.

17. Judge Confiscates Passports
Again and Orders Child To Doctor But Does Not Require Plaintiff To Show Cause.

The Judge considered the facts and
provided a court order [Exhibit V of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] that:

a. confiscated the
plaintiff’s passport and our child’s again.

b. ordered that the
plaintiff is not to travel outside a 100 mile radius of her home.

c. ordered that the
plaintiff take our child to the doctor within 24 hours, and to tell the doctor
where the child had been.

d. Ordered the plaintiff to get medical
insurance for my child in compliance with divorce decision.

18. Plaintiff Hides Information From
Doctor.

I called my son’s doctor and asked if he
was indeed examined and he was. The doctor volunteered over the phone that
usually the parents come in before a trip and tell the doctor where they are
going, the doctor will then inoculate and medicate as required to protect the
child. The doctor also told me that she asked the plaintiff if my son had fever
or chills and that the plaintiff said no. And so the doctor did not order a
blood test. As you know from above, my son had flu like symptoms which is why I
requested that he be examined.

19. Plaintiff Attempts To Strong Arm
Visitation Supervisor.

My first wife Irene who has a valid
court order to supervise visitations with my son and has done so for about a
year and a half had stopped supervising last June because it was exhausting all
of her free time and was having a negative impact on her health. I was sad
about this but I supported her decision. We remain good friends. As chance
would have it, Irene bought a Christmas present for my son Jack and wanted to
give it to him. She also wanted to give me a nice surprise because my birthday
is coming up. So she wrote to the plaintiff and offered to care for Jack one
day, which worked out to be January 14th. [Exhibit
W of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] are emails between Irene and the plaintiff. The
exhibits show that the plaintiff agreed to the visitation although as
visitation is court ordered, her agreement is not required. Moving along the
time line a few days to court order [Exhibit V
of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06],
you see that the plaintiff has just had her passport yanked and her movement
was limited to a 100 mile radius of her home. Furthermore, the plaintiff was
compelled to take our child to the doctor and pay for it. Worst of all, she
understands that she has almost completely destroyed her chances of winning two
huge law suits that she had been banking on for years. The plaintiff is angry
and it shows in the next exhibit. [Exhibit X of
Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] shows another email from the plaintiff to Irene (the email
is reprinted below).

Irene,

It
has come to my attention that you have yet to appear in front of the Court to
testify to the seriousness of your commitment to supervise any
future visitation between John R. Shearing and Jack, as was ordered in the
Final Judgment of Divorce of Oct. 14, 2005, paragraph 2:a, by Judge K. Brock.
(Attached)

This
provision was entered for good cause. I am allowing this one time
Christmas visit only with the understanding and agreement that
any future supervised visitation will be scheduled only after you
have complied with the aforementioned Court Order and can provide proof of
same.

Please
reply that you are in full agreement with this at your earliest
convenience. If I don't hear from you, I'll
assume that you are not in agreement with this and the visit for Saturday, Jan. 14th, 2006 is cancelled.

Elisa
Gonzalez

As you can see, the plaintiff
claims to have found a provision in Judge Brock’s divorce decision [Exhibit Y of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] mandating that Irene appear before Judge Brock
before anymore visitations can take place. But if you read the provision
(reprinted below), you can see that this is simply not what the judge wrote.

a.His present schedule of parenting time every Saturday
from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. may be expanded to
alternate weekends from Saturday morning until Sunday evening if the defendant
files a post-judgment motion to expand his parenting time and Irene Shearing
certifies or testifies that she is willing to provide the necessary
supervision.

It seems to me that the plaintiff wants every other
weekend without any children and so she twisted Judge Brocks
words in an attempt to force the visitation supervisor into accepting those
conditions. Please imagine for a minute if I told one of the Union County
Supervision Volunteers that they had to supervise for the whole weekend or
there would be no supervision at all. It’s just nuts. In any case, the
plaintiff knows that all communications of a legal nature must go through her
lawyer Mr. Duff. So I advised Irene not to respond to the emails because
answering them would only invite trouble.

20.Plaintiff Forces Our Child To Tears By Using
Him To Pass Her Demands To Me And By Threatening To Prevent A Planned Visitation.

On Friday the 13th, the night before the
visitation was to take place, the plaintiff forced my son to call me and demand
that Irene call her. My son told me that his mother would not allow him to
visit if Irene did not call. I told my son that his mother my not use him to
pass messages. I explained that Mommy has a lawyer for that. I then told my son
not to worry and that we would be there to pick him up at the correct time and
that his mother would allow him to visit because I had the judges
permission.

My son then called me again soon after. There was a lot
of stress in his voice. Again he told me that Irene must call the plaintiff or
she would not allow use to see each other. I tried to comfort and reassure my
son, but it was impossible. I begged him not to worry and to get some sleep.
Still, I don’t think my child slept well that night.

On Saturday morning, my son called me again. This time he
was crying hard. He told me that the visit was off. I told him that we would be
there at the correct time and that we would have our visit.

Soon after, my son called again crying even harder. He
told me that he and his mother would not be there when we arrived and that this
was the last time we would speak together because his mother was taking his
phone away from him. I told him I was still coming and that I would call the
police to help us work it all out if required. My son told me that he didn’t
want his mother to go to jail, so I assured him that no one was going to jail
and that the police were only going to explain the law to his mother.

Finally I got a call from my son telling me that he would
be allowed to visit after all. Of course he would be allowed to visit, I had a court order mandating the visitation. But why
did my son have to suffer so? On this issue I will ask you to look at the back
of the Trans-Parenting guide book distributed by Don Shapiro at the Union
County Courthouse [Exhibit AA of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06].There you will see a Bill of Children’s
Rights. Please notice Point Nine which states, “To be a child and not asked to
lie, spy, or send messages between my parents.”Clearly, my child’s basic right to be a child has been violated and has
suffered for it. The truth is that my son has been suffering for years. He
suffers every time the plaintiff puts her needs before his and uses him to
manipulate me.

21.Judge
Cassidy Hears Motions On Following Issues Feb 10 2006.

f.Stay Pending Appeal Of The
Divorce Trial. (Deferred)

g.Reconsideration On Giving The $10,000 Trust Fund To Plaintiff
Until Appellate Judge Could Decide Whether Or Not I Could Use The Fund To
Purchase Transcripts. (Denied)

h.Reconsideration Of Motion To
Show Cause As Plaintiff Is Still Violating Court Orders And Harming My Son.
(Denied)

i.Reconsideration On Limiting My
Rights To Access The Family Court As My Opponent Was Not Held To Same
Restrictions (Denied)

j.Cross Motion Preventing Me From Filing More Motions
With Out Approval Of Judge Cassidy. (Granted)

On issue of Stay Pending Appeal, Judge Cassidy deferred
to Judge Brock who heard the divorce for which there was no legal marriage to
dissolve. Exhibit I is Judge Cassidy’s court order. This is now
the second time this issue has been postponed. If you remember from above, I
filed for stay pending appeal on Nov 3
2005 with the Family Court, but the motion was buried until Dec 16 2005 when the Judge Cassidy
refused to consider the issue on the grounds that I did not qualify as
indigent. But the appellate court granted indigency
on Jan 11. Mean while I am exposed to jail time because I am indigent and have
no money to pay alimony ona marriage that never existed in the first place.

On the issue of Free Transcripts or
in the alternative Use The $10,000 Tax Trust Fund To
Pay For Transcripts: The motion was first buried from Nov 3 until Dec 16 2005 when the judge refused
to consider it because I filed as indigent. Exhibit E is the
court order. Then the money was given to the plaintiff on the same day(Dec 16) on a
different court orderthat was filed
after mine. [Exhibit M of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] is that court
order. Oddly, on the same day, Judge Cassidy provided another order
refusing to consider my parenting plan because the issue was already in the
jurisdiction of the Appellate Court[Exhibit L of
Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06].
I maintain that the issue of transcripts, and whether or not the plaintiff was
entitled to the $10,000 was also in the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court.
Were the two decisions consistent, then I would have nothing to complain about.
But because the decisions are so inconsistent, it supports my claim that I
Judge Cassidy is both punishing me for daring to appeal this case and is also
doing everything in her power to prevent this case from being heard in the
Appellate Court. Anyway, I raised these issues on motion for reconsideration
which was heard on Feb 10 2006,
and the judge dismissed my motion without comment and then provided an order
preventing me from filing anymore motions without first having them approved by
her. This is a problem, because if I can only file motions that Judge Cassidy
is predisposed to grant, then the appellate court will never hear any issues
that Judge Cassidy doesn’t want you to hear. This in effect makes Judge Cassidy
a reining monarch with absolute authority and no accountability. Judge Cassidy
says that I file to many motions, but this is only
because the plaintiff is violating court orders time and time again, and my
child is suffering. Lets take a look at the motions I
filed since the divorce and I will demonstrate that each is merited.

1.There is the divorce appeal for which you have seen
proof that the plaintiff was married to another man at the time she married me.
Again, a brief and conclusive evidence is included
with [Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06 under Point Heading 3].

2.I filed a motion for indigency
which Judge Cassidy denied but the Appellate Court Approved. So there is no
question on the merit of this motion.

3.I filed a motion for free transcripts or in the
alternative to use my $10,000 trust fund which is reasonable in light of my indigency.

4.I filed a motion which included a request that my
passport be returned. Since the motion was granted, it was understood to have
merit.

5.I filed a motion for reconsideration of Judge Cassidy’s
decision to give my $10,000 trust fund to the plaintiff which was reasonable
because Judge Cassidy herself determined that the case was already out of her
jurisdiction when the decision was made.

6.I filed an emergent motion to take my child to thedoctor which was
granted. So it is assumed to be reasonable.

7.I filed a motion that the plaintiff
show cause because she defied Judge Cassidy’s order and absconded with
my child to Guatemala.
If this motion had no merit, then why did Judge Cassidy yank the plaintiff’s
passport and restrict her to a 100 mile radius of her home?

8.I filed a motion for stay pending appeal which is
reasonable because I can not approach the appellate division with this request
until I have a written decision from the trial court on this matter.

9.I filed a motion for reconsideration ofthe previous motion to show cause
because the plaintiff continued to violate court orders after Judge Cassidy cut
her a break during the previous hearing. Had theplaintiff not interfered with court
ordered visitation, not strong armed the visitation supervisor, not and used my
son to communicate her demands, and not interfered with court ordered telephone
contact, then I would not have filed for reconsideration. Exhibit J is
the motion I filed. It follows reason that if Judge Cassidy would like me to
file less motions, then she should advise the
plaintiff not to violate court orders. That is the purpose of asking her to
show cause. But after all these violations, Judge Cassidy has never even
compelled the plaintiff to appear in court for any reason. When I argued my
case on Feb 10, that the plaintiff should come before the judge to show cause;
the judge refused to look at the evidence or consider my child’s suffering.
First, the judge told me that she wouldn’t look at the plaintiff’s threatening
emails [Exhibits X and Z of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] because I
could have forged them. So I told the judge that the plaintiff admitted to
sending the emails in a sworn certification sent to Judge Cassidy herself. The
plaintiff even included one of the emails with the certification. Exhibit
K is the certification and the email. Then Judge Cassidy told me that
she didn’t have time to look at the certification. Then I asked the judge to
phone the visitation supervisor to confirm that the plaintiff was trying to
strong arm her and the judge said that she didn’t have time to do that either.
Oddly, the judge phoned a litigant in the case just before mine. Finally, at
the end of the hearing, the judge decided on a cross motion that I would not be
allowed to bring anymore motions before her without first having her approve
them. If you agree that all my motions have merit, then how can this
restriction possibly be warranted? The message was absolutely clear. “Don’t
Bring Your Child’s Problems To Me, I Am Overwhelmed”.
I maintain, that if the judge would administrate
justice, then peace would follow. Instead, the judge ignores violations of the
law and the suffering of my child. Then she wonders why I keep showing up in
her court. Luke :18 deals specifically with this issue
and there are number of Bibles within the judge’s reach so why is the judge
confused? Clearly, Judge Cassidy is confused because she is not serving
justice, she is serving her own agenda, and she can’t tell the difference between
the two. This latest restriction is proof of that. I am begging you to
investigate this issue and reverse the judges order if
you find it unjust. So that you can make an informed decision, I am including
the plaintiff’s cross motion as Exhibit K and my response as Exhibit
L.

10.Most importantly, were requests in the motions
mentioned to address the well being of my son who is suffering terribly. If you have read up to this point, you can tell
the plaintiff is angry, is using my son as a weapon, and is involving him in
this legal battle. For this reason, I have asked the Judge Cassidy to mandate
the Trans-Parenting course given by the Union County Family Court for both the
plaintiff and myself (attending at different times of course). The course is
devoted to teaching parents how to protect children from the trauma of family
breakup. Who on earth needs this more than the plaintiff and I? The answer of
course is my son. Judge Cassidy denied my request. For this reason, I am
begging the Appellate Court to mandate this course for both the plaintiff and I
so that we can learn what is necessary to keep my son from being further
traumatized and so that we can learn to be better parents. Of course, the
plaintiff will argue that she does not need to know how to be a better parent,
but this belief unchallenged can only harm my son. All the evidence and five
years of war make it clear that intervention is required.

11.Finally,
when it was discovered that the plaintiff did not have medical insurance for my
son in violation of a court order, I requested that Judge Cassidy mandate that
the plaintiff either get medical insurance for my son, or allow me to do it.
Judge Cassidy mandated that the plaintiff get the insurance [Exhibit V of
Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06],
but provided no means for verification. I thought this was necessary in light
of the fact that the plaintiff violated the order to insure my son in the first
place, refused to take my son to the doctor, and when finally ordered to do so,
withheld information from the doctor about my son’s medical history. Further
more, the plaintiff defied Judge Cassidy’s order and took my son to Guatemala
with out inoculations or medicine recommended by the Center for Disease Control
to prevent Malaria and then hid his location, also against the order. Anyway,
in my motion for reconsideration, I requested that the plaintiff provide
verification of insurance. Judge Cassidy denied this. What I can’t figure out
is why the judge would confiscate the plaintiff’s passport and limit her to a
100 mile radius of her home, order her to take my child to the doctor and
provide proof of the visit, but not require her to prove that she has insurance
for my child. For this reason, I am appealing to you to provide a mechanism of
verification so that we can be sure that my child has medical insurance.

22. Child Suspended For
Threatening To Defend Himself With Gun.

Full details of this incident are
included in [Exhibit CC of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06]. Sadly I
couldn’t ask help from the Appellate Court specific to that issuebecause that help involved enforcement
of court orders which I understood from R.2:9-1 to be in the jurisdiction of
the Family Court. I discussed this with Judge Cassidy’s clerk Elina, and she instructed me to send Judge Cassidy a letter
explaining what happened and what help I thought my son needed. I sent this
letter on Jan 25 2006. This
letter is included as [Exhibit CC of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06]. The
reason Judge Cassidy needed to know about this was because the plaintiff was
using the situation as an excuse to prevent me from talking with my son over
the phone. This was a violation of a court order that granted me daily
conversation with my son. Please see [Exhibit Y of Appellate Motion filed
2/6/06].
I told Elina that I understood the judge would not be
able to handle all the issues, but that she needed to know the whole story so
that she could deal with enforcement of the court order granting telephone
contact with my son as this was still in her jurisdiction under rule 2:9-1. and enforcement issues were to be heard on Feb 10 under the
motion for reconsideration. Cover letter Exhibit M is my proof of
intent and conversation with Elina. Elina received the letter and told me over the phone that
Judge Cassidy would address the issue at the up coming hearing. Well at the
hearing on Feb 10 2006,
Judge Cassidy said that it was inappropriate for me to send her the letter and
did not deal with any of my son’s needs. Instead, she used it as a reason she
to prevent me from filing motions without prior approval. This is crazy because
I sent her the letter at the request of her clerk Elina
and never filed it as a motion. When I told this to the judge, she just ignored
me. Anyway, as Judge Cassidy declined to hear this issue or help my child, I
feel I have the right to bring this issue before Appellate Court. So for the reason’s above, I am asking for the following relief.

23.What I Am Asking The Court To Do.

1.I am asking that the court order the plaintiff to
return the my son’s cell phone so that I may call him as is my right according
to the divorce judgment and so that he may call me as is his right under court
orders previous to the divorce judgment. Please note that using this phone is
the only way I can initiate communications with my son because calling on the
plaintiff’s phone would violate a five year old restraining order. The
plaintiff may argue that the divorce judgment implicitly makes an exception in
the restraining order that allows me to make one call a day to the plaintiff in
order to reach my son, but I talked to Rahway police officer Lt Greyhill about this and he told me that the police would
arrest me for making a call to the plaintiff if the restraining order was not
changed. Further more, any judge who understands the enormous level of
animosity that exists between the plaintiff and myself
would provide a mechanism whereby I can parent my son without the need for
contact with the plaintiff. The cell phone is that mechanism. By preventing my
son from talking to me the plaintiff is only adding to my son’s isolation and
is hiding my son’s needs from the courts.

2.I am asking that the plaintiff be restrained from using
my son to communicate with defendant or visitation supervisor.

3.I am asking the court to address the issue that my son
is unsupervised and unprotected after school as demonstrated by the
bullying/gun threat incident. Again, please see [Exhibit CC of Appellate
Motion filed 2/6/06]
for a full understanding of what happened.

4.I am requesting an order that I be notified by the RooseveltSchool any time my son’s well being
is at issue.

5.I am asking the Roosevelt school
be ordered to initiate dialog with me on the issue of school bullying as it
relates to my son’s situation.

6.I am asking that the Roosevelt
school investigate my son’s claim that he was bullied by David and that a
report be provided to the plaintiff and myself as required under NJ
Anti-Bullying Law.

7.I am asking that the RooseveltSchool pay punitive damages for
withholding information about my child against court orders and that the money
be used to bring a motivational speaker into the school to address students and
teachers on the issue of school bullying. If the connection between school
bullying and school shootings is understood [Exhibit CC of Appellate
Motion filed 2/6/06],
then it should be understood that this small step will at least relive the
suffering of children and at most may prevent a horrible tragedy.

8.I am asking that the plaintiff be required to enroll in
a short anger management program directed toward protecting children from the
trauma of divorce. The Trans-Parenting course given by Don Shapiro of the Union
County Court would serve this purpose. In the alternative, I am asking that the
plaintiff appear before the court to show cause for perjury and contempt when
absconding with my child to Guatemala,
hiding his location, interfering with visitation, and preventing phone contact.

9.I am asking that I also be allowed to attend the
Trans-Parenting course given by Don Shapiro of the Union County Court but at a
different time than the plaintiff to avoid conflict.

11.I
am asking that Brian Schwartz of Ceconi and Cheifetz receive $500 for his work administrating the
$10,000 tax trust fund over the past 5 years. Money for payment would come out
of the $10,000 trust fund itself.

12.I
am asking that the Appellate Court reverse Judge Cassidy’s previous decision to
grant my $10,000 Tax Trust Fund to the plaintiff but rather leave the $10,000
fund in the possession of Brian Schwartz (my previous lawyer) until the Appeals
Court decides whether or not I can use it to purchase transcripts and pay my
back taxes and until the Appeals Court decides whether or not the plaintiff and
I ever had a legal marriage or if she is even entitled to the money based on
the possible reversal of the divorce.

13.In
the alternative to permitting me to purchase transcripts with the $10,000 tax
trust fund, I am asking for free transcripts as I am indigent and have no means
to pay for transcripts of the divorce trial.

14.I
am asking that the diamond ring which was handed over to the plaintiff under
the divorce decision be returned to Brian Schwartz until the Appellate Court
has had a chance determine if the plaintiff was ever in a position to make good
on her promise to marry the me.

15.I
am asking for a reversal of Judge Cassidy’s decision that all communications
with the Family Court be required to go through regular mail. I am asking
rather that this be left to the to the discretion of the defendant as I have in
no way abused my rights in accessing the Family court system and because the
plaintiff is notrequired to adhere to
this order and has violated it already. The most important reason to reverse
this decision is because this order prevents me from addressing the family
court in an emergency as in the recent emergent motion to take my child to the
doctor.

16.I
am asking for a reversal of Judge Cassidy’s decision that all motions must be preapproved by her before I can file them because I have
never abused my right to access the family court, have never filed a meritless motion, and because I have never filed a motion
for any other reason than to solve a real problem that only the family court
could address.

17.I
am asking that in the future, all issues of court order enforcement and child
welfare that would normally be routed through the Union County Family Court be
routed instead to the Appellate Court because Judge Cassidy simply will not
deal with these issues.

In conclusion, I realize that I am
asking for a lot, but that is because a lot needs to be done. The list may be
long, but the list is complete and is directed toward ending my child’s
suffering and protecting his well being. I am begging you to give this matter
consideration.